ISEJ_Vol 4(2) full

Volume 4, Issue 2

ISSN 2397-3072

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position Autumn/Winter 2016 the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]

ISEJ The International Student Experience Journal

Editorial Phil Horspool, University of Leicester

Articles  Autonomy and Critical Thinking as Threshold Concepts in Higher Education. Marwa Alnajjar and Shooq Altamimi  Understanding Masters Supervision Complexity of International Students in the UK. Ahmad Yusuf Idris  Student identity: transitions through project work. Rachel Elmslie and Siriol Lewis Student Article  From Japan to the UK: The academic journeys of two fashion design students. Martin Seviour (ed) Exams  Advertorial: Integrated Skills in English (ISE). Trinity College London  Review: The Trinity Test. Ophelia Lu Conference review  BALEAP PIM Southhampton. Gary Riley-Jones

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Editorial Phil Horspool University of Leicester Welcome to Volume 4 Issue 2 of the International Student Experience Journal (ISEJ). We hope that the slightly late arrival of this issue didn’t prevent all our readers from having an enjoyable Christmas! Having now published 8 issues since we launched the publication in summer 2013, it certainly feels that we are now an ‘established’ journal. Although there have been some changes in personnel, we still have 3 original founder members and we have now expanded our editorial team from around the UK. Our editorial panel will be meeting in the near future and one thing we will be discussing is what next for the journal. We would welcome any suggestions from our readers.

Before looking at the contents of this issue, I’d like to comment on recent world events that impact on the student experience. It is clear that the UK today seems to be a less attractive option for international students than it has been due in part to the perception created by the Brexit vote and the increasingly stringent and complicated visa regulations. It remains unclear (certainly to me) why the government continues to insist that international student numbers continue to be included in net migration figures. Anyway, we hope that events do not impact as negatively as we fear and that international students continue to come and have a positive learning experience in the UK. We’d love to receive articles from students about their experience of applying and studying here.

The current issue has three main articles, a student article, a review of a conference and the final instalment of our look at the Trinity Exam. We start with an article by Marwa Alnajjar and Shooq Altamimi on the integration of a MOOC into the MA in ELT at Coventry University. The authors argue that to enable international students it is a demonstration of how appropriate use of a MOOC can directly benefit the learning experience of international students. MOOC’s certainly seem to be increasingly used by Higher Education institutions to aid international students, in part this is undoubtedly due to their cost-effectiveness. Our second article from Ahmad Yusuf Idris from the University of Damascus is our first ever contribution from that region. Ahmad discusses the complex issue of supervision of international students in the UK. He concludes that further research into supervision of both international and home students would lead to a better understanding and benefits to all those involved. Rachel Elmslie from the University of Glasgow makes the case for project-based learning on pre-sessional programmes. She argues for the long term benefits of such learning for international students and emphasizes the motivating nature of project work. Martin Seviour offers some fascinating insights through interviewing two Japanese students at Nottingham Trent studying fashion design. A variety of areas are covered and these are undoubtedly of interest to students considering studying in the UK and those that are involved in delivery of programmes involving international students. Our conference report from Gary Riley Jones covers the BALEAP PIM ‘EMI in Higher Education: The Challenges and the Opportunities.’ hosted by Southampton University in June 2016. Finally, a former University of Leicester student, Ophelia Lu, tries out a Trinity ISE test, the only alternative exam to IELTS available to international students wishing to study in the UK. As always please contact us if you are interested in being involved in or contributing to the journal.

1

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Article Autonomy and Critical Thinking as Threshold Concepts in Higher Education Marwa Alnajjar and Shooq Altamimi Coventry University ABSTRACT This paper draws on our experience of learning on a MOOC that was integrated into a module while completing our Masters of Art in English Language Teaching at Coventry University. It focuses on how engaging with the integrated MOOC helped advance our comprehension of two threshold concepts: autonomy and critical thinking. Furthermore, it supports the notion that careful planning in the integration of MOOCs into existing modules could be beneficial in helping international students to manage areas of troublesome knowledge (Orsini-Jones 2015). ……………………………………………………………………………………………..........

Introduction It can sometimes be challenging for students to make the required ‘conceptual leap’ in order to become experts in their field (Land, 2011). This may be particularly true in the case of international students as the conceptual leap demands both an ontological and epistemological shift. In other words, international students, such as ourselves, enter a foreign educational context holding preconceptions of how learning should take place (Land, 2011).

However, in our case, there was a mismatch between our previous and new contexts. This mismatch made it important for us to identify our own personal ‘construct systems’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2012) and understand the reasons behind the beliefs and assumptions that we held regarding learning at university level.

Several frameworks have been developed to outline how university students might reach this transformed phase; one of these is Meyer and Land’s (2005) threshold concept framework. Threshold concepts refer to areas within the ‘content of [a] discipline or profession that pose deep challenges to learners’ (Shwartzman, 2010, p. 21). That is to say, they are concepts without which university students find it challenging to progress within the way the curriculum was originally designed (Land, 2015).

In our case, autonomy and critical thinking were considered threshold concepts. In this article, a demonstration will be provided of the epistemological and ontological transformation that occurred following Meyer and Land’s (2005) stages of threshold concept comprehension: pre-liminal, liminal, and post-liminal. A discussion will follow as to why these two concepts were troublesome, followed by how learning on a MOOC coupled with ‘meta-reflective practices’ (Orsini-Jones, 2010) transformed our understanding of these concepts.

2

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Pre-liminal: Our Initial Contact with Autonomy and Critical Thinking The pre-liminal stage is characterised by an interruption in students’ tacit views as they are introduced to threshold concepts (Land, 2011). Our first encounter with autonomy and threshold concepts occurred when we were assigned our first coursework in the MA programme at Coventry University. We had difficulties grasping the requirements of the coursework, as we felt that both the question and marking scheme were not clear enough.

This may be attributed to the nature of education in many countries, including our own. Most of our schooling tended to be teacher-centred and written assignments were very structured.

The contrast between the two pedagogical approaches in the different contexts made autonomy troublesome and, therefore, a threshold concept. Similarly, critical thinking was a threshold concept because we felt intimidated critiquing the work of expert researchers as part of our coursework. This was because we viewed critique as criticism and held the belief that, as novice researchers, we were not entitled to criticise others who were established in their fields. The ‘uncertain nature’ of our new educational setting made us feel ‘stuck’ (Land, 2011) and we wanted the safety of the certainty we experienced in our previous educational context.

Liminal: Engaging with the Integrated MOOC The liminal stage is characterised by the recognition of the shortcomings in learners’ existing views of the learning phenomenon in question, and an eventual relinquishing of the previous prevailing view (Land, 2011). It is followed by students’ surrendering their earlier mode of subjectivity and an acceptance of the alternative version of self, which is contemplated through the threshold space. In our case, the shortcomings in our views lead to a ‘mimicry’ of understanding; although we could define what autonomy and critical thinking were, we could not fully conceptualise them in practice.

To help us and other international students make ‘the conceptual leap’, our course director, Dr. Marina Orsini-Jones, integrated a MOOC into her module, Theories and Methods of Language Learning and Teaching, as an innovative blended e-learning practice (Orsini-Jones, 2015). The Futurelearn MOOC in question was administered by the University of Southampton with the British Council, titled Understanding Language: Learning and Teaching. After registering on the MOOC, the interface remained accessible, even after it had finished. This feature enabled us to complete the units of the MOOC according to our own convenience.

The units covered on the MOOC were:    

Week 1 – Learning Language: Theory; Week 2 - Language Teaching in the Classroom; Week 3 – Technology in Language Learning and Teaching: A New Environment; Week 4 – Language in Use: Global English.

Each week’s unit was divided into five sections, with each section revolving around a common theme and including a different set of activities. The number and type of activities differed from one section to another, and included articles, discussions, videos and reflections (Altamimi, 2016). Our module leader also encouraged us to share our reflections upon the completion of each week’s learning activities through the use of prompts and guiding questions, which were provided through a blend of face-to-face class discussions and online Moodle discussions. Moreover, we were required to reflect on this learning process as part of 3

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

our module’s final assessment to determine whether it reflected the principles relating to learner autonomy and if it differed from other learning modes we were previously accustomed to.

The integrated MOOC was also accompanied by the addition of a tele-collaboration project with Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Turkey, which included ‘an online international knowledge-sharing exchange on the MOOC with CU partners’ (Orsini-Jones, 2015). It took place between the 20th of April and 17th of May 2015. The aim of this project was to explore our beliefs before engaging with the MOOC on the aforementioned module, followed by an investigation of whether these beliefs have been affected by engaging in the meta-reflective practices detailed above (Altamimi, 2016). Subsequently, we had the opportunity to visit the university, in Turkey, on a study trip to share our reflections with fellow undergraduate students on the process of learning on a MOOC (Alhamed, Alnajjar, & Altamimi, 2015).

Engaging in meta-reflective practices through the combination of face-to-face and online discussions with the tele-collaboration project enabled us to consolidate our learning on the module. Moreover, it contributed to an increase in our intercultural awareness and facilitated a gradual transformation in our thinking processes with regards to the concepts of autonomy and critical thinking. This transformation can be attributed to our increased engagement with the MOOC, which revealed to us the different cultural stances that people hold regarding these two concepts. We were slowly accepting that the views we previously held regarding autonomy and critical thinking were not necessarily true nor objective: they were limited by our former engagement with the concepts.

Post-liminal: Epistemological and Ontological Transformation Finally, the post-liminal stage represents the point where students become transformed as a result of comprehending the threshold concepts. Students at this stage possess a transformed internal view of the subject matter, subject landscape and even world view (Land, 2011). This changed view might result in an ontological shift as well, thus creating a change in subjectivity: this is a re-conceptualisation that may involve a reconstitution of, or a shift within students’ subjectivity or identity.

Participating in the meta-reflective process of learning on an integrated MOOC with our module leader, with the addition of the tele-collaboration project, helped our transformation into autonomous learners and critical thinkers. We now recognise that as university students and researchers, we must accept the uncertainty of the world of higher education, as there are no ultimate truths in education (Meyer and Land, 2005). This recognition was translated into a transformed way of viewing our coursework requirements and marking schemes. What we previously thought of as ambiguous and lacking structure was in fact an outlet for us to develop and find our voice as researchers. For instance, our dissertations are the most tangible evidence of this transformed state of mind. This is because the process of writing a dissertation required us to take on a critical stance regarding existing literature in order to constructively contribute to our field of study. Similarly, we understood that the role of our dissertation supervisors was to merely provide suggestions and recommendations. Thus, it can be concluded that crossing the post-liminal stages enabled to successfully complete our dissertations with distinction.

4

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Conclusion Considering how a cultural context is an influencing factor in terms of how international students understand a concept, we recommend that university staff become aware of the mismatch between the students’ previous and current contexts. This awareness will assist module leaders in providing tasks and stimuli that are appropriate to the needs of their international students (Hill, 2012). It cannot be assumed that international students share the same starting point or enter the new educational context with the same preconceptions towards learning (Altamimi, 2016). Thus, by exploring what is troublesome to international students, module leaders could structure curricular interventions that would assist them in ‘crossing the portal’ (Meyer & Land, 2003) to an area where they can develop their acquisition of threshold concepts.

MOOCs are cost-effective when it comes to helping students ‘cross the portal’ as they allow for the expansion of the content of a programme at no additional cost, making stakeholders of universities and training institutes more likely to accept their adoption (Orsini-Jones, 2015). Nonetheless, it needs to be noted that certain MOOCs tend to be simplistic and repetitive (Alhamed et al., 2015). Furthermore, we felt that the lack of one-onone support to students on MOOCs may impede the development of students’ autonomy which was indicated by Orsini-Jones et al. (2015). However, as the MOOC was carefully integrated into an existing module, in our case, it offered the face-to-face support which MOOCs tend to lack.

Meyer and Land’s (2005) framework was specifically chosen to outline our transformation in thinking with regards to the concepts of autonomy and critical thinking because it considers both the nature of the knowledge and emotional capital. Furthermore, their framework highlights the difference between expert and novice knowledge. This is because in the case of experts who have crossed the threshold to deep understanding, threshold concepts are usually held as tacit knowledge; thus, university lecturers, as experts in their fields, may not teach these concepts in an explicit manner (Peter et al., 2014).

Accordingly, students might not realise their significance. Therefore, from our experience in engaging with threshold concepts like autonomy and critical thinking at Coventry University, we suggest that other universities take into consideration the learning experiences and reflections of alumni and current students. This is because students who have completed the programme in question may be able to shed some light on their experiences dealing with threshold concepts; their insights can help module leaders tailor their modules and instruction to assist new students to cross the thresholds.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR alnajjam@uni.coventry.ac.uk

Follow the ISEJ on Social Media.

5

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

References Alhamed, N., Alnajjar M. and Altamimi, S. (2015) ‘The MOOC experience’, paper presented at the Telecollaboration and Intercultural Communication Conference. Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, 12 May, unpublished.

Altamimi, S. (2016). An Investigation into Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding Troublesome Knowledge in Language Learning and Teaching in the Context of Studying on a Related MOOC. MA. Coventry University.

Hill, S. (2012) Troublesome or Threshold? The Experience of Difficult Concepts in Prosthetics. Ph.d thesis. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012) Language Teacher Education for a Global Society: A Modular Model for Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Land, R. (2011) ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: A Transformational Approach to Learning’. University of York Annual Learning and Teaching Conference. Held 25 May 2011 at the University of York.

Land, R. (2015) Threshold Concepts as a Pedagogy of Uncertainty [lecture] 14 October 2015.

Coventry: Coventry University.

Meyer, J., and Land, R. (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Meyer, J., and Land, R. (2005) ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (2): Epistemological Considerations and a Conceptual Framework for Teaching and Learning’.

Higher Education 49 (3), 373–388.

Orsini-Jones, M. (2010) ‘Troublesome Grammar Knowledge and Action-Research-Led Assessment Design: Learning from Liminality’. In Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning. (Eds.) Meyer, J., Land, R., and Baillie, C. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Orsini-Jones, M. (2015). Innovative pedagogies series: Integrating a MOOC into the MA in English Language Teaching at Coventry University. Innovation in blended learning practice.

York: Higher Education Academy.

Orsini-Jones, M., Pibworth, L., Cribb, M., Brick, B., Gazeley, Z., Leinster, H., and Lloyd, E. (2015) Learning about Language Learning on a MOOC: How Massive, Open, Online, and “Course?” In Helm, F., Bradley, L., Guarda, M., and Thouesny, S. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, ‘Critical CALL’. Held at Padova, Italy. Dublin: Researchpublishingnet, 1-8.

Peter, M., Harlow, A., Scott, J., McKie, D., Johnson, M., Moffatt, K. and McKim, A. (2014).

Threshold Concepts: Impacts on Teaching and Learning at Tertiary Level. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.

Schwartzman, L. (2010) ‘Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries: A Proposed Theoretical Foundation for Threshold Concepts’. In Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning.

(Eds.) Meyer, J., Land, R., and Baillie, C. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

6

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Article Understanding Masters Supervision Complexity of International Students in the UK Ahmad Yusuf Idris University of Damascus ABSTRACT As Masters supervision is a complex form of teaching (Grant 2003), this article uses semistructured interviews and questionnaires to explore the challenges that the Masters supervision process may pose for both international students and supervisors in the UK. It argues that efficient Masters supervision should teach international students how to go through a dynamic process of change from novice into more experienced researchers by establishing compatible expectations and promoting student independence (experience). ……………………………………………………………………………………………..........

Introduction The main motivation to conduct this study is associated with the importance of the process of supervising international students' Masters dissertation as a rewarding experience, because such students make genuine contributions at different levels to Anglophone universities: academic, cultural and financial (Huang, 2007; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007). However, they have been viewed by Morrison, et al. (2005, p. 328) as an obstacle in British higher education, for they sometimes have ‘difficulties with language, study skills, cultural adaptation’, and need more support than home students. There is a noticeable scarcity of published research on such students’ Masters dissertation writing. This article attempts to make a contribution to this research area as it explores the international students’ and supervisors' views on the complexity of the Masters dissertation process.

A key study that aimed to consider the dynamics of the complexity of Masters supervision was conducted by Grant (2003) who suggested a map for supervision. This map is used as a means to show Grant’s understanding of the supervision layers at Masters level.

To collect credible data, she relied on the transcript of supervision meetings and the two sets of written notes made by a Masters European-born student and the supervisor. She discovered that Masters supervision can be deemed as a ‘complex and unstable pedagogy’ that includes ‘an interesting mixture of the personal, the rational, the social, and the institutional, full of possibilities of all kinds, a source of great pleasure to some students and supervisors’ (p.

176). She further suggestts that ‘a different, perhaps more chaotic view of pedagogy’ is needed to become more ‘capable of infusing our teaching and research practices’ (p. 189). By ‘more chaotic’, it can be assumed that Masters supervision is a recursive and invisible form of teaching where new opportunities and diverse behaviours emerge unpredictably from the supervisor-supervisee relationship. So it seems mistaken to claim that these relations can be pre-defined or visible, because it is complex and peculiar to understand their dynamics in simple linear ways. It is possible to infer that the supervision process often moves towards the state of chaos that some point between stability and instability. Nevertheless, chaos can be illuminating, for it brings about some creative and dynamic changes and innovations that 7

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

appear spontaneously and idiosyncratically, thereby demonstrating an unpredictable and implicit pedagogy. It seems that Grant’s call for having a ‘more chaotic view of pedagogy’ gives cause for concern and suggests that Masters supervision as a complex form of teaching needs to be investigated and scrutinized in more detail. Recently, Zulu (2014) has used a narrative inquiry approach to investigate the actual experiences of a group of six Masters students and their supervisor in South Africa. He discovered that Masters students may find the dissertation journey a 'frustrating and stressful experience' due to a number of challenges: academic, personal, administrative, job-related, and financial (p. 213). Although Zulu's study concentrates on home students, it paves the way for exploring the challenging and complex nature of the International students’ Masters dissertation process.

The current study was conducted at a university in the Midlands, in the UK. Three different departments were involved: Manufacturing Group (WMG), Law School (LS) and Centre for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies (CTCCS). The study was guided by the following three research questions: (a) What are the international students’ initial expectations of the Masters supervision process in WMG, LS and CTCCS? (b) What are the international students’ views about the actual dissertation writing process in the three distinct departments? (c) What are the supervisors’ views about the Masters dissertation supervision process in the three departments?

Literature Review Even though research on international students’ perceptions of Masters supervision is sparse (e.g. Morrison, et al. 2005), it may be backed up by the literature that relates to Masters student supervision in general (Woolhouse, 2002; Anderson et al., 2006; 2008; Zulu, 2012).

Influenced by Grant’s (2003, p. 189) view that Masters supervision is ‘a particular and peculiar pedagogical practice’, it is useful to examine how negotiating and agreeing on supervision expectations may offer insights into the unstable nature of this teaching practice.

The mismatch between Masters students’ expectations and those of their supervisors may make the supervision process a complex terrain. By exploring the supervisor’s and students’ views of the Masters dissertation as a short project, McMichael (1992, p. 309) found that ‘though student and supervisor expectations may not greatly diverge in general terms, their interpretation and elaboration in individual cases [can] leave room for mutual disappointment…’ That is, the conflict may be due to unclear and perhaps incompatible expectations of students and supervisors. This gives cause to investigate this mismatch in more depth. By using interviews, Woolhouse (2002) examined the complex relationship between a Masters student and a supervisor by focusing on their initial expectations of the supervision process. She found that a main reason which makes the supervision process unpredictable is that the supervision expectations may not always converge. Woolhouse (p.

143) suggested that face-to-face tutorials should be ‘more structured’ to help both students and supervisors negotiate and discuss supervision expectations. This study aims to explore this suggestion in more detail.

Anderson et al. (2006, p. 158) also considered how face-to-face ‘initial meetings’ urge both supervisors and students to clarify certain expectations in relation to student’s responsibility towards originating a dissertation topic. Meetings proved helpful to set supervision expectations even at later stages. Anderson, et al. (2008, p. 43) used in-depth 8

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

interviews to investigate students’ perceptions of the professional Masters dissertation process and discovered that most students were satisfied with their supervisors’ styles with specific reference to negotiating the expectations of the actual frequency of meetings. A main advantage of this negotiation is that students would work with greater independence on their dissertations. As one of their student participants indicated, ‘As a more mature learner, you have the resilience to realise that a block is perhaps a step or something but you don’t need to bash your head against it, there are other routes.’ It is of interest to note that lack of autonomy is a challenge that international students may face when doing their Masters dissertation in a UK context. Woolhouse (2002, p. 143) also believes that the supervisor, as an established authority, is in a more powerful position to guide novice students to ‘become progressively more independent so that they should be developing and presenting their own ideas through their dissertation.’ Grant (2003, p. 181) regards this 'productive pedagogical power relation' as a 'complex matter' that 'is often unaddressed in supervision'. Therefore, more substantial research is needed to explore the effects of this power relation on the unstable teaching process of transforming international students into more independent learners.

Data Collection This investigation was a qualitative small-scale study that utilized two data collection tools: semi-structured interviews and semi-open questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were used to investigate the initial expectations and actual views of a small number of Masters international students in WMG, LS and CTCCS. The names of both students and supervisors used here are fictional. Three rounds of student interviews were conducted. The first round, which took place before students actually started the dissertation writing stage, included 12 international students from WMG, LS and CTCCS (four from each department). The second round took place while students were going through the actual process of their dissertation writing and includes interviews with three international students (one from each department: Suha (LS), Martin (WMG) and Shihab (CTCCS). The final round took place while the students were working on the final draft or submission of their dissertation with the interviews being conducted with the same international students interviewed in the second round. Semi-structured questionnaires included open-ended questions that aimed to explore a small number of supervisors’ views of the Masters dissertation supervision process. The questionnaire data consists of fourteen completed questionnaires from WMG, six from LS, and six from CTCCS. Data Analysis The qualitative data comes from interview transcripts and written answers to the open-ended questions in the questionnaires. This corpus of textual material was subjected to an analysis using a qualitative content analysis technique. An advantage of this technique is that it begins with the interpretive essence of textual materials (Silverman, 2001). In the following section, the findings will be reported and discussed by developing an ‘unfolding’ story from the database, allowing the students’ and supervisors’ voices to emerge. Data was collected from three complementary groups of participants: twelve student interviewees, three longitudinal cases (Suha’s, Shihab’s and Martin’s) and 26 supervisors. The findings were interpreted analytically, drawing on quotations from students’ interview transcripts as well as the completed questionnaires’ qualitative elements. Interestingly, the supervisor’s views tend to support and throw light on, but also in some respects challenge the supervisees’ views. To ensure transparency, I decided to develop a system of referencing the data extracts. This 9

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

system shows how all quotations can in principle be traced back to a specific data source. It includes some information about the respondent, department and data event. A good example is Shihab, CTCCS, first interview.

Findings and Discussion An interesting theme in the early interviews is that many students view the dissertation process as a source of worry and optimism which shows the paradoxical or 'chaotic' nature of the dissertation process at the early stage (Grant, 2003, p. 189). The main themes have emerged from the qualitative data are discussed below.

Lack of Experience/Expertise A central matter for many student interviewees is the apprehension about lack of previous experience. This view comes across in the following extract: You feel just disappointed... because you didn’t learn so much and you have to write a dissertation. And you have to pretend to be professional, but in fact you’re not.

(Helen, LS, 1st Interview) What Helen seems to imply here is that it is not only necessary to have some experience when doing a Masters dissertation, it is also important to be aware of the exacting expectation of producing a substantial piece of writing that may be expected of a ‘professional’.

Likewise, it is recognized by Shihab (CTCCS, 1st Interview) that ‘no prior experience in writing dissertation’ made him ‘feel a bit anxious’. Some evidence can be gained from supervisors’ questionnaires. For example, Antony (WMG) argues that lack of experience is a key challenge that international students may face when doing their Masters dissertation in a UK context, as suggested by the following passage: … the Chinese seem to expect to do only what teacher asks for or tells them to dothey seem to have very little experience of being pro-active in their work, they have to be led by the tutor far too much.

This is in line with Anderson et al.’s (2008, p. 37) finding that the ‘interviewees reported little prior experience to guide their dissertation efforts’. To explain students’ fears due to lack of prior experience in more depth, a key point emerged: language obstacles.

Language Obstacles Many students report that because English is not their first language, the dissertation process can be a frightening experience. Evidence is offered by Joyce who mentions that language inadequacy can have a direct effect on her understanding as well as her ability to come up with a clear linguistic structure: The first thing is a language problem because I’m Chinese. English is not my native language. So perhaps also use my native thinking to organise the language, to organize the words. Perhaps from the native English speaker aspect they think in some obstacles to understand. (Joyce, WMG, 1st Interview)

10

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Interestingly, Martin (WMG, 1st Interview) acknowledges that the language hurdle can also have a negative impact on the supervisor’s feedback: When I submit my part, my document to the supervisor... he has to spend time to revise my grammar problem or my spelling problems, my language problem. And then he can’t focus on the technical thing.

Morrison, et al. (2005, p. 328) also note that English language insufficiency can be a problem for international students. In a similar vein, a number of supervisors’ views gained from analysing the questionnaires reveal how linguistic hurdles may negatively affect international students' dissertation progress. The following excerpts offer am illustration of this finding: The language is a key problem. Both understanding tutor conversations and being able to get the idea across clearly. (William, WMG) … International students can experience linguistic difficulties, where English is not a mother tongue (Frank, CTCCS) Sense of Excitement vs. Fear of Complexity Concerning students’ excitement about becoming involved in real research, two aspects were often mentioned by a number of participants who seems to see researching for the dissertation as a process of discovery and an opportunity to develop something ‘original’. The data suggests that the dissertation process can offer students opportunities to train themselves on how to carry out some real research. This is seen in the following quotation: You can really search. You can do a lot of research... You have to really develop a model that’s really a high expectations (sic)... (Laura, WMG, 1st Interview) The following extract from the interview with Helen also illustrates how the dissertation process can provide students with a flavour of real-life research: You have to do more research on your dissertation... and if you write an essay maybe you just spend one week to collect all the materials and do your reading... But for the dissertation you do a lot of work to really do a research before you write the dissertation. (Helen, LS, 1st Interview) Some students seems to believe that the research component of their Masters programme can help them achieve something more valuable that is not perceived in the assignment writing process. According to Shihab (CTCCS, 1st Interview), It’s not really the amount of words I have to write but it’s the quality of what I’m going to write... The assignment doesn’t really have to be original. But for the dissertation maybe you do this in one part of it but for the most part you have at least to be original in your approach.

Another example of a student interviewee that highlights the value of the research aspect in coming up with something novel is Laura (WMG, 1st Interview): 11

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

You’ve to research much more than you would do in an assignment. In dissertation, it is much more important that you come up with something that’s really of value to that area.

It seems that the dissertation research can be a personally illuminating experience (Anderson et al. 2006, 2008). It is important to note that in hoping to make an original contribution to knowledge students are also raising their own expectations and putting pressure on themselves. Yet, the findings also suggest that some students are daunted by the complexities of the research process. One value of this tension is that it can reveal something about the unpredictable nature of the dissertation process. Two reasons were found for why students feel afraid of the complexities of the research process: unclear departmental expectations and lack of autonomy.

Although Mike (LS, 1st Interview) sees the opportunity for deeper engagement in the dissertation, he mentions that an important obstacle that he has already faced is that departmental expectations may not be clear enough thus generating anxiety: I feel anxious because I think mainly because I’m not very much sure how my dissertation should be here in the UK because of course we received some instructions from the Law department but sometimes I feel that these instructions are not enough.

This suggests that Mike’s anxiety has made him more conscious that establishing clear expectations is an important characteristic of the dissertation supervision process (see Woolhouse, 2002: 142). The supervisors' questionnaires also show that the mismatch between students’ expectations and those of their supervisors may make the supervision process difficult. Linda (CTCCS) indicates that students coming from ‘other learning cultures, have different frameworks of expectations, and different understandings of what is good/appropriate learning + reading’ and cannot take it for granted that the model used here is one they understand and are able to ‘adjust without considerable guidance.' This finding suggests that one of the main reasons behind the gap of expectations between student and supervisor is concerned with ‘different frameworks’ and lack of awareness of the extent and nature of guidance required from the supervisor.

Lack of Autonomy At this early stage, Suha, (LS, 1st Interview) is worried that the supervisor’s lack of availability can have a negative effect on her work. In her words, Sometimes my supervisor might be sick at the moment which I need him. That can be one of the problems when I’m desperate.

Suha’s comment suggests that lack of autonomy is a main hurdle that international students may face when doing their Masters dissertation. Evidence can be gained from the supervisor questionnaires. Kamal (LS), for instance, argues that, 'it is more likely that non-British students will have difficulty in relating to interactive, independent and research-based learning'. Further, Colin (WMG) recognizes that the problem of showing independence is related to the issue of power, as mentioned in the following extract: 12

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

In my opinion international students are more deferential – they expect the supervisor to set the direction and to have all the information. I think they are looking at the project as going towards a set answer. I think British students are more used to the project being open-ended and the supervisor being a guide rather than having all the answers. I think international students think that the supervisor is the most important person as they believe the supervisor can give them a good mark.

Jeffery (CTCCS) also notes that international students may be trained to view the supervisor as a supreme authority, and this ‘training has been build [sic] on the absorption of facts and emulation of the master i.e. teacher’. Such findings can be substantiated by those of Grant (2003, p. 181), especially when she considers the direct effects of this power relation on Masters students' independence. Students’ expectations towards supervision guidance at this early stage are complex and unpredictable (see Anderson et al. 2006, 2008) but leave open the possibility that students’ sense of intimidation may change as they become more experienced and independent at later stages of doing the dissertation. On the other hand, some students feel confident that their supervisor will act as a professional expert as expected by Suha (LS, 1st Interview): At the end of day, as I’ve told you earlier that I’d love it to be published maybe or whatever so um he has to give me the full guidance. So to make it, he has to always advise me, have a full cooperation with me, give me all the resources he has.

Similarly, many supervisors view themselves as guiding international students throughout the MDW process. For example, Colin (WMG) says: 'The supervisor should assist where requested, guide the direction and help the student to keep on track and learn the process of doing a dissertation.' The point that the supervisor is a potential guide matches well with the findings from a study by Grant (2003, p. 189) where the supervisor seeks to ‘guide the student in this task, to assist the student to do the best she/he can, to have the most successful outcome possible.’ The supervisor is seen as playing a key part in helping the international student deal with the complexities of the dissertation research process.

A key theme that emerged from the three longitudinal cases is that students are anxious about supervision expectations, because their early views of what the dissertation is may be seen as different from those expressed at later stages of the supervision process. For instance, although Suha expects at the start that the dissertation may be an enjoyable process ('I’d love it to be published'), her perception has changed at later stages to the extent that she now finds the dissertation more challenging and nerve-racking: I just feel oh this is so important work and I need to get done in a good way you know when you want to make your things perfect and good sometimes you end up panicking. (Suha, LS, 2nd Interview) Martin had high expectations at the beginning because he intended to produce something useful for those working in medical IT management. On the other hand, his expectations diminished at later stages: Actually, my dissertation is a bit useless, to be honest, because... I say short of company. I think something like that. Not totally useless but a bit useless. It is under

13

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

my consideration, expectation. I think the outcome should be more. (Martin, WMG, 3rd Interview: 26-49) One main reason is that the ‘outcome’ is not up to his expectation. He aspired to develop a project but he could not do it because of insufficient research resources (short of company).

Shihab also slightly changed his views of what the dissertation should be. In his words: Well. But what I can do then I mean it’s really my responsibility really not hers. I should have contacted her earlier... It’s my responsibility really the fact that I'm contacting her late… (Shihab, CTCCS, 2nd Interview) It’s really worrying because you still have this sense of expectation whether when you hand in the final thing at the end whether it will proved (sic) to be good. That’s the bad side of it, I suppose. (Shihab, CCTCS, 2nd Interview) It seems that Shihab acknowledges that he was not responsible enough throughout the dissertation process, especially when he had to submit drafts and contact the supervisor. On the other hand, Shihab’s increased self-awareness could lead to a greater awareness of what was required of him particularly in relation to the dissertation results (Anderson et al. 2008).

The Value of Compatible (Mutual) Expectations From the analysis of student interviews and supervisor questionnaires, a number of incompatible expectations of students and supervisors have been identified. The main differing expectation concerns to what extent the supervisor should offer guidance to students. This expectation is affected by the students’ commitment. Antony (WMG) adds: The student should also realise that the project is not just a piece of work that only has to be done after all the other formal post module assignments have been completed. It should start very early on in the course – in WMG case, say November.

Nevertheless, some students and supervisors in this study show awareness that it is important to train international students on how to establish compatible expectations. Put differently, some mutuality of expectations in Masters supervision should be achieved because this kind of negotiation can be seen as an important attempt to help students become more experienced researchers. This finding concurs with Anderson et al.’s (2008, p. 47) call for making Masters supervision ‘go beyond a setting out of formal expectations and allow a more open sharing of... understandings, hopes, fears and uncertainties connected with the dissertation’.

Another key finding worth discussing is that students’ expectations of Masters supervision are largely influenced by the developmental aspect of the dissertation process.

Initially, some international students’ expectations were characterized by lack of clarity and confusion due to the unpredictable nature of Masters supervision. Later, students’ worries about Masters supervision increased because there is a gap between their initial expectations and later ones of what a good dissertation should be. Some evidence can be gained from Martin’s (p. 11) longitudinal case. At the outset, he hopes to improve medical IT management by offering some solutions to particular problems. However, he cannot do it because of lack of adequate research materials. The supervisor himself is also seen as a barrier because his feedback asks Martin not to provide solutions. This mismatch of feedback 14

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

expectations is enlightening because it shows how students need to make sure that their expectations are reasonable by negotiating them with those of the supervisor. Such findings echo to some extent Zulu's argument (2014, p. 222) that 'student and supervisor expectations are often at odds at the beginning of the journey and the nature of the supervisory process may pose a challenge for the supervisor and supervisee.' In comparison with Martin’s case, Suha’s can show how her expectations are more sensible throughout the dissertation process due to the ongoing dialogue with the supervisor. Suha explains this by saying: I make sure I have good contact with my supervisor because I feel that he has all my life is within him. If I mess anything up with him I feel like I will ruin. So all the time when I get even I don't like to communicate with him just by sending drafts sometimes.

I will just write hello, how are you? (Suha, LS, 2nd Interview) These findings are supported by the existing literature. For instance, Woolhouse’s (2002, p.

143) study stresses the importance of negotiating the expectations with the Masters student at early stages of doing the dissertation. Anderson et al.’s (2006: 159, 160) study also highlights the value of clarifying supervision expectations not only at initial stages but also during the various stages of the working process. There is a consensus among students and supervisors that regular face to face meetings offer more opportunities for the supervisor and supervisee to negotiate incompatible expectations (Woolhouse 2002; Anderson et al. 2006; 2008). The following quotation from Shihab’s third interview shows how face-to-face tutorials can help both students and supervisors discuss particular expectations and exchange relevant questions: When you have a face to face meeting you can judge you know the better… you have the chance to ask follow up questions to clarify the answer more fully. You can judge you know how your supervisor feels about your dissertation better because you can study the way he or she responds. (Shihab, CTCCS, 3rd Interview: 182-195) The supervisor, Robert (WMG), argues that supervisory meetings can be seen as 'a good way of judging if the student has grasped, fully understood and answered the research objectives.'

This finding lends support to Paltridge’s and Starfield’s (2007, p. 13) argument that ‘face-toface interactions are a crucial part of the supervisory process.’

Promoting Student Independence Grant (2003, p. 175) claims that Masters ‘supervision is not only concerned with the production of a good thesis, but also with the transformation of the student into an independent researcher. This transformation is effected through... a relationship that engages student and supervisor/s in productive power relations’. The present study confirms Grant’s argument to some extent. Evidence can be gained from the supervisor questionnaires. For example, Colin and Jeffery claim that international students find difficulty in changing into independent learners throughout the dissertation process because they are trained to view the supervisor as a knowing figure or an expert whose main function is to fill the empty vessel (the student) with appropriate and sufficient knowledge. On the other hand, Christine (CTCCS) adopts a more liberal view that the unequal power relationship between students and supervisors should be downplayed by helping students achieve more engagement or ‘communication’ with the supervisor. In her words:

15

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

It can never be stressed enough the need of communication between the supervisor and the international supervisee. Both parties need to understand and reiterate their expectations from each other throughout the process of supervision. The supervisor is in a more position to foster a dynamic relationship with the student in terms of sharing views and expressing needs. I therefore think that the supervisor needs to put in special effort to encourage her/his international students to voice their need or opinions at any stage.

The findings gained from Suha’s longitudinal case are also useful. Suha sheds some light on how paradoxically achieving more engagement with the supervisor can increase her sense of independence. The following excerpts from her second and third interviews offer some explanation on this: Well. I could say previously I was independent maybe 40% and now I could say 60%... It’s rise and up because now I’m like you know involved it’s a work which I’m involved in all the time with my supervisor. Whenever I write anything I have to make sure I get his approval. (Suha, LS, 2nd Interview) It’s just like you go to a house. And then at the end of the day when you're leaving the person will be like you know I will see you some other time. It is different if that person will ask you to come again and visit. Then you feel that like ok he has enjoyed or she has enjoyed my company. (Suha, LS, 3rd Interview) Manathunga’s (2007, p. 219) study confirms Christine’s and Suha’s views, especially when she argues that ‘supervisors facilitate students’ development of their evolving identity as independent researchers…’ Surprisingly, Shihab thinks that one way to increase his independence is by becoming more dedicated whereby the supervisory relationship is between him as a person and the dissertation as a process rather than only between him and the supervisor. In his words: I never expect much of anything you know I always think about the worst that could happen really. I would say now it’s 90%. I’m not the type of the person who expects much from anyone really it’s my nature not to expect much from anyone I always you know hope for the minimum not for the maximum. (Shihab, CCTCS, 2nd Interview) One advantage of this view is that the student can rely on his/her own initiative to work on the dissertation. Such findings support Grant’s (2003) view based on Foucault’s (1986, p.

427) definition of power as a relation that can be ‘always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action’. Moreover, instead of viewing supervision as a ‘dyadic’ relationship between teacher and student, Grant (2003, p. 180) maintains that it is necessary to regard it as a ‘triadic’ one between teacher, student, and the dissertation itself. In other words, the supervisor and the student are two powerful adults who are ‘transformed through the processes of pedagogy. In a sense, the outcome of supervision is not only to teach the student skills but to teach the student how to be someone − a researcher, a scholar, an academic’ (ibid.).

16

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Conclusion The findings of the present study also show the importance of viewing Masters supervision as a ‘chaotic’ (2003, p. 189) form of teaching. Some evidence can be gained from students’ first interviews. At the early stage, several interviewees regarded the dissertation process as a mixture of challenge (e.g. language obstacles, unclear departmental expectations, lack of autonomy) and optimism (e.g. doing something original, research as a discovery, the supervisor as a guide). A number of supervisors’ views gained from analysing the questionnaires offer some substantial support for this paradoxical blend. Additionally, some initial dichotomous views seems to have remained through the dissertation process with the students considered as longitudinal cases (Suha, Martin and Shihab) reinforcing the view of the Masters supervision as a challenging yet worthwhile experience for both the supervisor and the supervisee (Huang, 2007). In broad terms, such findings support those of Grant (2003, p. 176), especially when she argues that the complexity of Masters supervision is based on ‘misunderstandings, ambiguities, excitements, contradictions, confusions, moments of unexpected clarity, fragmentations…’ Zulu (2014, p. 222) also argues that the complexity of Masters supervision is based on ‘initial tension and misunderstanding that can be resolved as the relationship matures and changes.’

The significance of the current study is that it has opened the door for many higher education researchers to investigate the complex nature of Masters supervision pedagogy from different perspectives. It may help international students to see their at Masters dissertation process as an opportunity to experience their own learning process by negotiating supervision expectations with their supervisors and transforming into more independent researchers. To help international students avoid any potential miscommunication and receive some professional guidance, supervisors are recommended to encourage students to make sure that their supervision expectations are realistic and meaningful at any stage of the dissertation. Supervisory meetings can be seen as a useful method because they may stimulate both international students and supervisors to learn how to reconcile expectations, share views, and learn from each other.

To conclude, more research is required to explore the messy nature of supervising international Masters students at other departments in different universities to gain richer and more helpful insights into the dynamics of this chaotic form of teaching. It would be important to involve home students to find out any differences or similarities in their views about such important Masters supervision issues.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR ahmady1978@windowslive.com

17

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

References Anderson, C., Day, K., and McLaughlin P., 2006. Mastering the dissertation: Lecturers’ representations of the purposes and processes of Master’s level dissertation supervision.

Studies in Higher Education. 31(2): pp.149- 198.

Anderson, C., Day, K., and McLaughlin P., 2008. Student perspectives on the dissertation process in a masters degree concerned with professional practice. Studies in Continuing Education. 3(1): pp. 33- 49.

Foucault, M., 1986. The subject and power. In Wallis, B. (ed.). Art after Modernism: Rethinking Representation. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art. Grant, B., 2003. Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse. 24(2): pp. 175190.

Huang, R., 2007. A challenging but worthwhile learning experience! Asian international student perspectives of undertaking a dissertation in the UK. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. (6)1: pp. 29-38.

McMichael, P., 1992. Tales of the unexpected: Supervisors’ and students’ perspectives on short term projects and dissertations. Educational Studies. 18(3): pp. 299-310.

Manathunga, C., 2007. Supervision as mentoring: the role of power and boundary crossing.

Studies in Continuing Education. 29(2): pp. 207-221.

Morrison, J., B. Merrick, Higgs, S., and Le Metais, J., 2005. Researching the performance of international students in the UK. Studies in Higher Education. 30 (3): pp. 327-337.

Paltridge, B., and Starfield, S., 2007. Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: a handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.

Silverman, D., 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: SAGE. Woolhouse, M., 2002. Supervising dissertation projects: expectations of supervisors and students. Innovations in Education and Training International. 39(2): pp. 137-144.

Zulu, C., 2014. The Master’s dissertation journey: experiences of a group of part time students at one university campus in South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences, 39 (2): pp.

213-223.

18

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Article Student identity: transitions through project work Rachel Elmslie and Siriol Lewis University of Glasgow ABSTRACT Students entering higher education in the UK must be able to learn independently and understand how knowledge is constructed in their future academic community. This is particularly true for international students, who may come from academic backgrounds with very different practices and conceptions surrounding learning, teaching and the nature of academic discourse. This paper outlines a project-based course innovation involving students on a pre-sessional EAP course in a UK university. We argue that project-based learning not only develops students’ language and academic skills but also provides the means to develop their identities as legitimate participants in their future academic communities. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..........

Introduction Over the last two decades, the growth of UK Higher Education (UKHE) has been accompanied by a rise in the number of international students, to nearly 392,000 in 20142015 (UKCISA, 2016). All students entering UKHE must quickly become familiar with what is expected of them as learners, how teaching takes place, and how academic knowledge is constructed in this context (Wingate, 2007), yet many international students come from academic cultures where student and tutor expectations, teaching and learning, and knowledge creation practices differ significantly from the UK. To support international students through this transition, Luxon and Peelo (2009) note a need for local-level initiatives that act as a conduit for top-down international student recruitment policies. This article examines one such innovation, a supported independent study project within a pre-sessional course. The project casts learners in a new role, with implications not only for their experience and understanding of practices in UKHE, but also for their perception of who they are and how they contribute to this learning community.

Rationale and background to the project To aid international student transition into the academic, linguistic, and cultural norms of UKHE, the institution discussed here, offers pre-sessional courses in English Language and Academic Skills. These run year-round for between 40 and 5 weeks, with entry points every 5 weeks. Courses are in English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP), moving to discipline-specific pathways for the 5 weeks preceding the commencement of academic programmes in September. Most students come from East Asia, particularly China, and the Middle East. The majority progress to postgraduate taught programmes in a range of disciplines.

19

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

The innovation described here is a 10-week project involving 150 students which took place from April to June 2016 within the EGAP phase of the pre-sessional course. The project involved two 90-minute classes and 1-2 hours of independent work per week. Students worked in groups to conduct simple empirical research into an aspect of the University’s proposed 10-year, multi-million pound campus development.

The project was introduced to enhance learner autonomy and group work skills for study and employment, and was aligned to the University’s graduate attributes. Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) were for students to: • Recognise and apply common processes and features of basic empirical research projects • Engage with the University and local community • Work effectively in multicultural groups • Work independently and manage their time • Reflect on learning.

The project was unassessed and formative, to encourage linguistic and academic experimentation. The BALEAP Can-Do Framework for EAP syllabus design and assessment also informed course design (BALEAP, 2013). The course designers’ approach was not that students must adopt the culture of the receiving institution. However, we believe that international students must be able to understand and navigate practices in UKHE to avoid “cultural shock”: “a primary issue affecting student success” through its potential impact on academic performance and personal well-being (Kingston & Forland, 2008, pp. 211-212).

Project outline The project structure was as follows. Students formed groups in week one. A “flipped classroom” approach was taken in the first five weeks, with classroom time utilised to “push” linguistic output (Swain, 1995) and support more linguistically and cognitively demanding tasks. Students learnt about the project topic through background reading and by attending a guest lecture in week two, then selected a sub-topic of the campus development to investigate, such as study space design, conservation of the University’s historic buildings, or green energy. They considered basic research methods and ethics, then created research questions and instruments. These instruments consisted of questions for 15-minute interviews with campus development team members (architects, planners and project managers), organised by course designers. Students also wrote short questionnaires and administered them in person to the public, students and University staff to elicit perceptions, preferences and recommendations regarding the campus development. Data were collected and analysed in weeks six to nine, and in week 10 findings were disseminated via poster presentations attended by peers and interviewees. Throughout the project, formative feedback was provided from tutors, peers and self-reflection, mainly to enhance learning processes and learner autonomy.

Shifting learner engagement Tutors and course designers continually evaluated and developed the project using reflection, observation, discussion, and informal student feedback from conversations and in-class 20

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

surveys. We became aware that, although project ILOs were presented explicitly to students in the course overview and by tutors, student feedback suggested that what they felt they were learning was quite different to what we intended.

In its early stages of the project, despite their academic abilities, experiences and other attributes, some students struggled to identify the project aims or did not identify with the aims. This disconnect had several possible causes: the unfamiliar project topic which was unrelated to students’ academic programmes; its cognitively and linguistically challenging tasks; or the difference between its goals and the more conventional language and skills focus of other EAP classes. Further, many students’ prior experience and expectations of assessment-led learning and didactic teaching practices contrasted with this unassessed, student-led project. The prospect of interviewing high-status professionals was also daunting, with the fear of public failure and reduced self-esteem if communication broke down. These disparities may have precipitated insecurity and poor identification with the project.

In the subsequent data collection phase, student engagement seemed to grow. Despite our initial concerns over student engagement, the interview session with campus development team professionals was successful and vibrant as students interviewed (many for the first time) a native or proficient non-native user of English who was not a language tutor; they could see the connect or disconnect between questions and responses, and evaluate their interaction. Students and interviewees reported effective communication, and the feeling of ‘inclusion’ in an academic community was evident in their language, instruments, preparation and attitudes. This was reflected in or perhaps partly due to the professional interviewees’ treatment of the students as educated, articulate and “valid” postgraduate researchers.

These interviews emerged as a significant milestone in the project and in students’ self-perception. From this point, momentum gathered in terms of student motivation, engagement, and quality of work. Students increasingly understood how the different elements of the project supported each other; for instance, how research questions, texts and empirical data interacted to create new knowledge. The one-hour poster presentation session in week ten formed an important conclusion to the project, with many students confidently presenting convincing and articulate research findings to peers, tutors and campus development team members.

Student engagement: the role of critical incidents We had not anticipated such an obvious and positive shift in student engagement over the duration of the project. Students were moving away from language learning as a primary objective even though tutors saw strong improvements in this regard. This shift was paralleled in student feedback and reflection which increasingly referred to skills and activities they associated with postgraduate student researchers. Students often focused on learning outcomes prompted by what we understood as “critical incidents” in and outside class, such as interviewing, ethical awareness, analysis and visual presentation of data, or teamwork. Some incidents did not involve tutors, while others held high significance for students but not for tutors and course designers. This fits with Tripp (1993, p. 40) that “incidents only become critical because someone sees them as such” and suggests growing student reflection on action.

The second emerging theme was students’ emotional response; notably, growing confidence and satisfaction at being able to complete project tasks. Few students reported increased connection with this university in particular, but instead, many seemed to be adopting a more assured postgraduate student role with their growing ability to create 21

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

knowledge, co-constructed with other participants in their sociocultural context and through intertextuality. This may be an example of an adjustment of self-beliefs which, according to Wingate (2007, p. 395) contributes to understanding how one learns within an HE environment. Similarly, Farrell (2008, p. 3) notes that formal reflection on incidents can help the individual to develop new understandings of the learning process. Our course design and its informal feedback mechanisms seemed to be a catalyst to develop this “noticing” disposition which supports learner autonomy.

Evolving roles and participation We believe the shift in self-perception from language learner to postgraduate student reflected the development of nascent identities situated in a postgraduate student community of practice, real or imagined, as the project demystified structures, roles and codes. Students may have had some form of L2 self-image before arriving in the UK, as implied in their choice to undertake postgraduate study in an L2 environment, and projects build on this. For some students, this image was clearly somewhat nebulous, but we believed that those with pre-course experience of academic or professional life had a stronger L2 self, reflected in a more immediate identification with the project ILOs and attainment of academic and research skills outcomes. Underlining the importance of identity in learning, this could be seen as the beginning of “legitimate peripheral participation” (LPP), or “the process by which newcomers become part of a community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29).This transition seemed to be facilitated in this case by the projects. Participation and “future selves” Lave and Wenger (ibid) state that motivation relates strongly to identity and membership; we believe that projects motivate and equip learners with the language, skills, understanding of its systems and sense of legitimate belonging to participate in a community.

Using the framework provided by Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (2009), the identity shifts we saw could also be interpreted as learners integrating with their own self-concept rather than an external community. Experiences, interactions and critical incidents within the project enhanced a sufficiently vivid and plausible self-image to motivate behaviour to achieve a future “ideal self”, for example, the use of videos or examples of a task, followed by classroom input, practice and feedback, then task performance in the semi-authentic project context. However, the “ought-to” L2 self, conforming to external norms and expectations, may have also motivated students as a preventative measure to avoid failure in the project, for example in their thorough preparation for public task performance. This may have particular relevance for students who had told or implied to tutors during the course that their academic path was largely determined by parental or societal expectations.

Implications for EAP course design A typical EAP class could be perceived as both restricted and restrictive; it aims to develop necessary academic competencies but may take a prescriptive approach, imposing a fixed identity on learners that does not build the confidence, motivation, or autonomy of a more organically evolved identity. Alternatively, omission of identity as an explicit learning outcome, or failure to situate it, may create difficulties if vague or conflicting identities can emerge only incidentally in a course. Through course content which enables students to position themselves within the practices, roles and systems of a real or even imagined target community of international postgraduate students, and through providing opportunities to

22

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

develop social membership in this community, student identities can develop to guide learning.

Our findings might support Salter-Dvorak’s call for courses which go beyond the basic “bolt-on language courses” that appear to be seen by some within UKHE as sufficient to support international students. Rather, there is a need for courses and activities which allow learners to “create identities which can enable LPP” (2014, p. 857), not as actors conforming to an imposed norm, but as valid and self-directed participants creating and adding to a community.

Conclusion Our initial aims in devising the project discussed in this article were to enhance student autonomy, group work skills and engagement with the University. We believe that the project achieved the last two objectives, and certainly met the first one, although deeper investigation of individual student experiences and critical incidents is needed to enhance understanding of themes that emerged from the project. Nevertheless, we propose that situated projects that attend explicitly to identity provide conditions which are absent from many classroom-only language-based courses. These conditions can develop the strong motivational force of an ideal future self, with potentially powerful long-term implications for learning. In longer EAP preparatory programmes, elements that are explicitly included to sustain, develop and focus motivation to enable situated identity development and legitimate peripheral participation have great potential for guiding learning. Indeed, we believe that these may be as necessary an element in EAP programmes as more traditional language and academic skills in supporting student transitions to UKHE. CONTACT THE AUTHOR rachel.elmslie@glasgow.ac.uk siriol.lewis@glasgow.ac.uk

References BALEAP, 2013. https://www.baleap.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/Can_Do_Framework__with_sample_activities_April_2013.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2016] Dörnyei, Z.,2009.The L2 motivational self-system. In: Dörnyei Z, Ushioda E, editors.

Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters, p. 9-42.

Farrell, T.S., 2008. Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal, 62(1), pp.3-10.

Kingston, E. and Forland, H., 2008. Bridging the gap in expectations between international students and academic staff. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), pp.204221.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Luxon, T. and Peelo, M., 2009. Internationalisation: Its implications for curriculum design and course development in UK higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), pp.51-60.

Salter-Dvorak, H., 2014. ‘I've never done a dissertation before please help me’: accommodating L2 students through course design. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8), pp.847-859.

Swain, M., 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, pp.471-483.

Tripp, D., 1993. Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement.

London: Routledge.

UKCISA, 2016. http://institutions.ukcisa.org.uk//info-for-universities-colleges-schools/policy-research--statistics/research--statistics/international-students-in-uk-he/ [Accessed 15 July 2016] Wingate, U., 2007. A framework for transition: supporting ‘learning to learn in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3), pp.391-405.

ISEJ

24

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Student Interview From Japan to the UK: The academic journeys of two fashion design students Martin Seviour (Editor) Nottingham Trent University We often read about the linguistic and cultural challenges faced by international students as they adapt to life in a new country and a different academic setting. As well as adjusting to a new way of life, on and off campus, they are often faced with some quite fundamental differences in the way their subject is taught and studied. Shi Qianqian and Junzaburo Iwasawa both completed a pre-sessional EAP course before embarking on their MA degree in Fashion Design at Nottingham Trent University.

Prior to coming to the UK they both studied for their Bachelor degrees in Japan. Here, in conversation with their EAP teacher (Martin), Shi and Jun reflect on some of the main differences they encountered between studying for Design degrees in a Japanese university and at NTU and the challenges they faced.

Martin: Shi, could you tell me something about what you did before coming to NTU and why you chose the UK? Shi: Before coming to the UK I studied at undergraduate level in Bunka Fashion College in Tokyo, the best dressmaking school in Japan. As a child in China I loved to draw, and I dreamt of becoming a fashion designer. During the first two years at Bunka, I learnt the basics of garment making and in the following two years I developed specialized knowledge through collaborations and internships with external companies. Although I improved my apparel making techniques in Japan, I wasn’t confident in the research and design process. I was aware that the methods and focus of design study in the UK were quite different to that of Japan and I felt that learning these different things could help me reach my career goal. That’s why I chose the UK for the next stage in my education as a fashion designer.

Martin: What about you Jun? Why did you choose the UK? Jun: I came here with the aim of developing transformable garments that suit multiple identities.

Before coming here, I did a 4-year bachelor degree in Fine Art at Musashino Art University in Japan.

During this period, I also attended the Pratt Institute in America for one year on an exchange.

Although we have different backgrounds Shi and I shared similar surprises when we started our degree here in the UK. We both encountered differences between the approach to the study of design in a Japanese university and in a British university.

Martin: What sort of differences?

Jun:

One of the main differences I found between the two approaches is the importance of process in learning in a UK university. In Japan, I didn't have to document how I developed my ideas. I just exhibited my paintings and then gave a short presentation about the work.

That was the only thing the professors looked at or heard from me to assess my work. So when I first started my course at NTU and was told to document how I developed my design ideas, for a while I struggled with keeping a record of this. This was especially difficult for me because, personally, I like ambiguity when developing ideas. I like to keep things abstract 25

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

in order to think freely. I scatter my ideas and inspiration all over the place which sometimes makes it difficult for others to understand what's going on in my head! But this ambiguity and uncertainty was considered a good thing in Japan. I think the concept of the beauty of unknown area comes from the Japanese language itself.

Martin: What about you Shi? Shi: Yes, I also had a similar experience. At the beginning of the MA fashion design course at NTU, we were told to keep a record of everything because our ‘journey’ is of great interest to our tutors. It means that we have to record every step of our thinking process and design development - even if they are negatives. So we were told to keep a reflective journal and were also required to show critical analysis in our research sketchbooks. This was totally new for me because it was not required when I studied my BA in Japan. In Japan, our tutors could know our design development through tutorials, but it wasn’t necessary for students to do written work as evidence. I think the possible reason for the difference is that in the UK much more importance is attached to students’ ability in independent study than in Japan. Here, in the UK, we spend most of our time working independently on our own projects. In Japan, although we also did our own project in our final year, we were able to speak directly with our tutors almost daily as we had to go to class every day. Another reason is that most conscientious Japanese students do not like to show their thinking or their unfinished work to others.

Although I am not Japanese, I also dislike showing my weaknesses or failures to others. So, like Jun, it has not been easy for me to change to a new approach.

Jun: Yes I also didn’t have to keep a detailed record of my thought processes when I studied in Japan. But after having done this here in England, I have learned that this is important not just for assessment but also to help me review my path, and understand how I am developing as a designer and where I want the journey to take me. Now I have more control over the outcome I want by keeping the process documented. However, even though I knew I had to evidence my thought process in detail, at first I didn't want to write every inspiration down in my sketchbook. It took time to get used to it.

Shi: Another big difference I found between Japan and the UK regards research. It seems there was no real focus on research when I studied in Bunka, I didn’t even know the differences between primary and secondary research. Also referencing was not as strict as in the UK. Here, when we use other people’s work, such as photographs or paintings, we have to write down the names and years clearly nearby. On the other hand, In Japan we spent much more time on more technical things, such as pattern cutting, sewing skills and CAD. Jun: I think it is very helpful for me to look at the written feedback from my supervisor and the course leader. Each time when I have an individual tutorial with my supervisor, myself need to fill in the tutorial feedback form. This form has three different columns - " agenda for meeting", “aims for progress before the next tutorial" and "supervisor feedback". I never had this kind of form to fill in when I was in Japan. The only feedback I got in Japan was verbally right after a presentation. I think this difference also shows how British academics put more emphasis on the learning process than in Japan. At the very end of each module at NTU I had to submit a self-evaluation form. This makes us realize where to make improvements. I think Japan is a naturally verbal country - sometimes we don't want to put everything in writing. In fact, in the past, we didn’t even have a writing system. We started to write by importing Chinese characters. Generally, we were a more verbal culture than written and I think this idea is still running in our soul, even if now we have developed our own writing system.

26

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Shi: Yes, there is big difference between Japan and the UK in terms of academic feedback. We received both oral and written feedback in the UK. But in Japanese Universities the written feedback system is hardly applied. I received oral feedback very frequently when I studied in Japan, but rarely got written feedback. In my opinion, one of the possible reasons is that written feedback is usually clear and to the point, and Japanese people have a tendency to avoid expressing their ideas very clearly. Actually, when I got my first piece of written feedback here I felt shocked to read about my weaknesses, because it was so clear and direct. I had never had my weaknesses so clearly evaluated in writing before. Although in Japan I had received oral feedback this was usually quite vague.

However, I have to admit that now I really appreciate written feedback as it can constantly and clearly remind me of some important points and it can activate the learning process. It’s true that students coming from a culture like Japan where people tend to be less critical and direct have to have a hardy soul when they study in the UK! Jun: Yes, indeed, I think this ambiguity is supported by the Japanese language itself. When I am writing in Japanese I don’t have to say “I did this” or “I did that”. It is left to the reader to make sense of it without putting the subject in a sentence. The Japanese like others to interpret language in their own way rather than stating it clearly. Even in the structuring of an essay this ambiguity is present. I think that sometimes this ambiguity comes from trying not to hurt other people’s feelings. By making our opinion not so clear it makes room for others to think what it really means. Sometimes this can be problematic for foreign students studying in Japan because they cannot understand the meaning behind a tutor’s comments - especially on critique day. Finding someone who is willing to tell you the weak points in your work and your working methods in a straightforward way isn’t always easy in Japan.

Martin: Did you find time-management more of an issue here in the UK? Jun: The university where I used to go to in Japan had a lot of freedom and I had to control my time.

In UK universities I think time management is stressed much more but it is considered to be a skill you learn by yourself. They ask us to take responsibility for our individual actions such as asking for help or accessing the facilities.

Shi: Yes, I think time management is a common problem among design students in both Japan and the UK. It must be considered and improved no matter where we are because of the nature of design work. However, a key difference is that in the UK there is actually an assessment criterion named, “Applying planning and time management skills to support an independent and collaborative working approach.”. There is no such evaluation criterion to guide students in most design college in Japan.

This doesn’t mean that time management is less important for students in Japan, but more attention is paid to it here. I have heard from my friends who are taking their masters course in Japan that they also have quite a lot of free time as we do here. So, in my opinion, you should put just as much emphasis of time management when you study in Japan even though it will not be assessed formally.

Martin: Thanks very much Shi and Jun. It’s been really interesting. I think your reflections will be very helpful for any students who are considering studying in another country with a very different academic system. You have made the point very clearly that adapting to a new academic culture can be just as challenging as adjusting to a new lifestyle and cultural mores.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR martin.seviour@ntu.ac.uk

27

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Advertorial

Integrated Skills in English (ISE)

What do you want from an English language exam?

What do you need to know about overseas students before they embark on a course of study? There are many skills international students need to succeed in an English speaking academic environment, and these go far beyond the language ability they are required to evidence before commencing a pre-sessional programme or course of study.

Skills for success in an academic environment?

International students require a skill-set that can broadly be separated into three groups:

Increasingly, university language centres require language assessments to not only offer an indicator of basic linguistic ability, but also ask for a valid measure of communicative competence and an indication of these other relevant skills.

Assessments are needed that demonstrate a student can perform well in a study context within this wider skill-set, whether it is recognised as a valid indication of abilities prior to acceptance on a course, or whether it forms part of a pre-sessional or in-sessional programme.

28

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Introducing Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English exam Trinity College London’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) exam is a contemporary multi-skills language exam designed for people who need English language skills for study. With a strong focus on real language performance and promoting the development of transferable skills for academic study and employability, ISE assesses the communicative skills needed to succeed in the 21st century.

An ISE qualification provides valuable evidence of a student’s ability to communicate effectively in English. Preparing for Trinity’s ISE exams fosters the language communication skills needed for future development. This is because the type of tasks practised for the exam are also relevant for college, university and for employability purposes.

ISE exam – skill sets Developed with some of the world’s leading linguistic assessment practitioners (including CRELLA and Lancaster University), Trinity’s ISE has been constructed to give a valid assessment of communicative competence and places an emphasis on the use and development of a variety of transferable skills and study strategies.

The construct of the exam aims to ensure that a course of preparation will have a highly positive effect on the teaching and learning process, and will engender the development of this wider skill-set.

A brief overview of the skills embedded within ISE is given below.

An integrated exam – communicative competence Built to assess communicative competence, ISE measures a candidate’s ability to communicate in real life situations across all four skills beyond the confines of grammar and lexis.

ISE combines Reading and Writing exams and Speaking and Listening exams to test skills in the way they interact in the real world. Both exams are currently offered at four levels of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) from A2 to C1. The purpose of one module is to assess candidates’ English language skills in Reading and Writing and in the other module Speaking and Listening in a context which reflects students’ real world activities and their purpose for learning English.

The reading texts reflect the range of sources a student may encounter in an educational or academic context and the way that they need to find, select and report relevant and appropriate information. The writing tasks reflect the kind of activities a student does in an educational context, such as essay or summary writing.

The integrated Speaking and Listening tasks reflect the kind of activities a student will do in an educational context. Additionally, the recordings used in the independent listening task reflect the way that students find, select and report relevant and appropriate information in an academic context.

The speaking and listening rating scales give an assessment of communicative competence, interactive listening, language control, delivery and independent listening; again to reflect an individual’s overall communicative competence.

29

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

An integrated exam that reflects transferable skills ISE has been developed to reflect a range of transferable skills; a skill set that is increasingly referred to as essential for student success.

ISE promotes the development of the following transferable skills:

Confidence Taking an ISE exam encourages students to perform at their best in English, using a wide range of interpersonal skills to introduce and discuss a personalised topic, helping to develop self-confidence.

Collaboration Candidates are assessed on their ability to interact naturally in reallife contexts that are reflected in the exam. Students are responsible for initiating and maintaining conversation.

Critical thinking Tasks are designed to encourage the engagement of critical thinking skills including summarising, paraphrasing, analysing and synthesising.

Interactive listening and soft skills Trinity ISE is the only exam that explicitly assesses the essential communication skill of interactive listening.

Self management Time management and organisational skills are developed as candidates prepare for the exams and perform the tasks in the allotted time.

30

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

An integrated exam that reflects study skills ISE is set in an educational context and use the type of activities and tasks that students come across in their studies.

ISE promotes the following study skills:

Authentic, integrated skills Tests students’ ability to use reading and writing skills and speaking and listening skills in combination — to reflect how people use English in real life.

Academic writing Supports academic process writing such as planning and reviewing, reading across multiple texts and making notes to inform further writing.

Spontaneous communication Tests spontaneous, authentic, interactive and communicative speaking and listening skills that are essential for tutorials and seminars.

Independent and interactive listening Tests both interactive and independent listening skills needed for study.

Learning strategies Promotes the development of language learning strategies which are important for students who are learning English language in parallel with other subjects.

Framework alignment Trinity College London is an exam board regulated by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual). Trinity College London’s English language qualification levels are mapped to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). Trinity ISE and GESE qualifications have been independently calibrated to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) as part of an extensive and award-winning study led by Lancaster University, a world leader in the field of evaluation.

31

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Diagnostic Profile All ISE candidates receive a detailed diagnostic report for each skill showing strengths and areas for improvement.

Here is an example of a candidate’s diagnostic report for Task 1 - Long reading in the Reading & Writing part of the exam. It shows the three language skills measured by Task 1: Diagram B: Example from a report Task 1 - Long reading

Recognition of ISE Trinity College London liaises with education authorities around the world to ensure that our candidates’ achievements are recognised. These arrangements vary from country to country, depending on the subject area and the type of qualifications concerned.

In the United Kingdom, Trinity College London is one of only two exam boards approved to offer Secure English Language Tests (SELT)s which can be used as evidence of English language proficiency for UK visa purposes. Visit www.trinitycollege.com/UKvisa for details.

Trinity ISE is recognised by most UK universities and Higher Education Institutions. Check proficiency level requirements with institutions before applying and check the Trinity College London website for more details. www.trinitycollege.com/UKrecognition.

Trinity College London’s GESE, ISE and ESOL Skills for Life qualifications were awarded Qmark status by ALTE, having met all 17 of its stringent quality standards.

32

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

So what do you we need from an English exam?

If you’re a student looking for a qualification to demonstrate your academic ability to successfully follow a course of study…

If you’re a tutor looking for a motivational, academic target for your students…

If you’re a centre assessing a student’s academic competence…

You might want to take a closer look at the Trinity ISE.

In summary, Trinity ISE offers: • • • • • •

A contemporary multi-skills exam matching learning context and purpose Assessment tasks that enable learners to apply what they know Assessment of truly integrated skills in English Building of real-life communication skills for academic study and transferable skills for employability Tests that support teachers in the classroom through positive backwash A diagnostic report which shows strengths and areas for improvement

For more information and a summary of ISE, please see the ISE Fact Sheet.

You can also visit www.trinitycollege.com/ISE for exam guidance, specifications, resources and classroom activities. You can also watch sample Speaking & Listening exam videos for each ISE level.

Next Steps?

Trinity College London offers support and guidance for tutors and administrators. The ISE exams are offered once a week at 10 SELT centres across the UK, bookable on www.trinitySELT.co.uk.

It is also a possibility to become a Registered Trinity Centre. Registered Trinity Centres can book their own convenient dates for examiner visits and sessions which are available throughout the year.

To get in touch, please email unirecognition@trinitycollege.co.uk

33

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Exam Review The Trinity Test Ophelia Lu University of Leicester The ISEJ invited one of the University of Leicester former international students, Ophelia Lu, to take the Trinity Test and share her views on it with our readers. Ophelia is currently a member of the administrative staff at the English Language Teaching Unit (ELTU) at Leicester has now extensive experience working with and supporting international students in the department. We asked Ophelia some questions related to her exam experience and here are her answers to them.

ISEJ: Were you clear about the levels and what the results can be used for?

Ophelia: There are 6 different levels/types of Trinity exams for UKVI. I didn’t really know the differences before I booked a test. On the front page of Tests for UKVI of Trinity exams, it has a table listed of application types, CEFR level required and which Trinity exams you should take. It’s clear and easy to find out which exam I needed. The test I chose to do was ISE II. ISEJ: Were you provided with practice tests or could you easily find them on the internet?

Ophelia: When you know which exam you need, there is a lot of useful information on Trinity exam website to explore. This includes teaching and learning support resources. For the learning support, you can find exam guides, practice Reading & Writing papers, guidance on writing genres, practice audio for listening tasks and sample videos showing the format of the test. It also ISEJ: How easy/difficult were the questions for you? Do you think the level of the questions was compatible to your level of English?

Ophelia: The test instructions are straightforward for the Reading & Writing tests. I struggled a little bit on the first section of Reading which asking you to choose the best title for each paragraph. I spent a lot more time on that section than I expected. I don’t think it was because the questions were difficult or the level was not compatible to my level of English. I just found the options were quite vague. Apart from the first section, it didn’t take long for me to move from one question to another.

However, I was not really sure about the Speaking & Listening parts before I booked my test. Although I found the information about the format of the tests, I still had some questions in terms of what actually happens. With the sample videos available on the Trinity exam website, you can see what is involved in each task. These were very useful and also helped me to understand the format better before the test.

34

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

ISEJ: Would you have to wait long for the test results?

Ophelia: It says on the website that you usually receive your certificate within 15 working days. I took my test on 3rd October and received my certificate on 18th October.

ISEJ: How does the test compare to IELTS? Ophelia: I think the test is quite different from IELTS. It takes, in total, about 3 hours to finish IELTS and it takes 2 hours and 20 minutes to finish all four skills of Trinity ISE II. In terms of format, the four skills of IELTS are separate papers, but they are integrated in Trinity exam. Reading is integrated with Writing and Speaking is integrated with Listening.

In my opinion, the most interesting difference is the Speaking part. There are three tasks in the Speaking part; topic task, collaborative task and conversation task. In the topic task, you can prepare a topic you want to talk about in advance. In the exam guide, it advises the candidates to choose a topic that can demonstrates their English skills. This really surprised me that you can actually prepare what you want to say. However, it is important to know that this should be a discussion and not a piece of speech you memorised.

The second task is more likely to test your social skills as well as your speaking. The examiner tells you about a situation and you need to start the conversation, ask questions, get more information or details and keep the conversation going. In the last task, there are a range of subjects which you can find out in the exam guide. You will be asked a question about one subject to start the conversation. You can also ask questions and have a discussion about the subject. It is not like IELTS that the examiners do not get involved in the conversation, they just ask questions.

ISEJ: Would you recommend this test to others?

Ophelia: I would recommend this test to other students. However, I strongly suggest preparing for it before actually taking the test. For example, you may be asked to write in a specific type, such as emails, essay, etc. It would be useful if you know what kind of format and what type of language you should use. The integrated format of Speaking and Listening tests needs more preparation in advance. Make sure that you take advantage of being able to prepare what you are going to say.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR yl233@leicester.ac.uk

35

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

Conference Report BALEAP PIM: EMI in Higher Education: The Challenges and the Opportunities – University of Southampton, 11 June 2016 Gary Riley-Jones Goldsmiths, University of London

For many EAP tutors based in the UK, the need for a BALEAP PIM on the subject of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) and its precise relevance to EAP might not have appeared immediately apparent. However, interest in this area had been aroused by Professor Rebecca Hughes’ comments at the BALEAP Biennial at the University of Leicester in 2015 that EMI is a field that will become increasingly relevant to EAP provision and ‘a growing global phenomenon’. The BALEAP PIM at Southampton, organised by Mary Page and her team, brought home the importance of the relationship between these two fields.

Dr Kristina Hultgren of the Open University gave the opening plenary entitled ‘EMI in Higher Education: Implications for EAP’. In what was an excellent overview, Kristina began her presentation by defining what she understood by the term ‘EMI’, distinguishing it from Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and EAP. The difference, she argued, was based largely on geopolity and educational level in range i.e., while EAP is English-dominant and global and essentially operates at a tertiary level with regard to geopolity and level respectively, EMI is non-English-dominant and global and operates at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Kristina stressed that EMI should not be regarded as a ‘threat’ to EAP practitioners, but on the contrary should be seen as an opportunity for collaboration between subject and language teachers, between EMI and EAP communities and between EAP decision makers, practitioners and researchers. She also argued that EAP has the knowledge base for successful EMI implementation and that coupled with the continued growth of EMI ‘there will be a lot more – not less – for EAP to do!’

The subsequent sessions I attended addressed the practical issues related to the relationship between EAP and EMI. The first, given by Anna Nunan of University College, Dublin, was entitled ‘Managing the Balance between Language Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: “EAP to Precede EMI”’. Anna argued that while EAP tutors have the expertise to scaffold student learning and help students acculturate to the academic environment before entry onto their course, subject specialists are best placed to evaluate students’ understanding of the knowledge and research in a specific field. Referring to a specific example of where EAP tutors and subject specialists had worked successfully together on a pre-sessional at University College, Dublin, she concluded that EMI as a direct approach to the teaching of an academic subject through the medium of English should follow EAP preparation, rather than replace it.

Similarly, Chris Foggin, from the University of the West of England, discussed one of the potential difficulties related to the relationship between EAP and EMI, namely ‘Addressing and Assessing the Differences in the way EAP Tutors and Subject Specialists Assess Student Writing’. In his presentation, Chris made the observation that while both EAP 36

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

tutors and subject specialists endeavoured to assist students with their writing, there is often a mismatch with regard to the type of assistance each group provides. Citing Ursula Wingate, he highlighted the misconceptions that some subject specialists had about their role with regard to academic literacies, and suggested how such misconceptions could be alleviated through closer collaboration with EAP tutors.

In the afternoon I attended an online presentation by Alexandra Reynolds of the University of Nantes. Her session, entitled ‘English as a Medium of Instruction in France’, presented an empirical study that she had conducted involving interviews with 164 academics which questioned how they positioned their professional identities in relation to the use of English for professional purposes. Her findings were very interesting. She discovered that English is more than a medium of instruction but also a medium of academic identity, and that to a degree the term EMI is a misnomer as academics and students participate in bilingual English medium contexts. The EMI observations at Nantes also revealed that despite concerns, subject specialist credibility was maintained and linguistic knowledge was negotiated.

Irina Kyulanova, of Sofia University, presented on ‘Teaching Ethical Engagement as a part of EAP/EMI Instruction’. Arguing that although EAP/EMI often focus on controversial issues in order to replicate the nature of academic debate, and while the objectives of such discussions in terms of language and analytic skills are often well mediated, issues involving an ethical element are perhaps less well navigated. Using examples from her own teaching on a first-year undergraduate module on EAP and EMI, she highlighted some of the challenges and potential risks that may arise from the lack of a methodology for teaching ethics. In her conclusion, she cited Foucault and argued that EAP/EMI classes should be meta-spaces that allow for a legitimisation of an ethical perspective – an ethical perspective that should be habitualised regardless of discipline.

This review touches upon only a handful of the themes that were discussed at Southampton. Other presentations included such topics as assessment (Jane Richardson, Heriot-Watt and John Slaght, Reading); the training of EMI teachers (Paul Roberts and James Chantry, York); and the experience of EMI in Japan (Samantha Seiter, Oxford and Cathy Benson, Edinburgh) – all of which give an indication of the breadth of EMI and its potential for the future.

Many of the presentation slides and the conference programme are available on the BALEAP website. A Storify of the event is also available on Twitter via @baleap, together with commentary by @baleap @GoldLinguist @BellaReichard and @EmmaVictoriaLay, among others.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR G.Riley-Jones@gold.ac.uk

37

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

38

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

ISEJ – International Student Experience Journal

Volume 4(2), Autumn/Winter 2016

ISSN 2397-3072

The International Student Experience Journal is a peerreviewed online publication for those involved in researching, teaching and providing services to international students in Higher Education in the UK and other English speaking countries. The Journal links the everyday concerns of university staff including academics, researchers, EAP practitioners and the students themselves with insights gained from related academic disciplines such as applied linguistics, education, psychology, and sociology.

http://isejournal.weebly.com/ 39